Pros of MediaMTX

• Lightweight and efficient, with lower resource usage
• Supports a wider range of protocols, including SRT and WebRTC
• More flexible configuration options for advanced users

Cons of MediaMTX

• Less user-friendly interface compared to Restreamer's web GUI
• Fewer built-in features for stream management and monitoring
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

MediaMTX configuration example:

paths:
  all:
    readUser: user
    readPass: pass
    publishUser: user
    publishPass: pass

Restreamer configuration example:

{
  "server": {
    "host": "0.0.0.0",
    "port": 8080
  },
  "ffmpeg": {
    "binary": "/usr/local/bin/ffmpeg"
  }
}

MediaMTX focuses on a more compact, protocol-specific configuration, while Restreamer uses a broader JSON structure for its settings. MediaMTX's approach allows for more granular control over individual stream paths, whereas Restreamer's configuration is geared towards its web-based interface and overall system settings.

Both projects serve similar purposes but cater to different user needs. MediaMTX is better suited for users requiring advanced protocol support and fine-grained control, while Restreamer offers a more user-friendly experience with its web GUI and integrated features.

Pros of MediaMTX

• Lightweight and efficient, with lower resource usage
• Supports a wider range of protocols, including SRT and WebRTC
• More flexible configuration options for advanced users

Cons of MediaMTX

• Less user-friendly interface compared to Restreamer's web GUI
• Fewer built-in features for stream management and monitoring
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

MediaMTX configuration example:

paths:
  all:
    readUser: user
    readPass: pass
    publishUser: user
    publishPass: pass

Restreamer configuration example:

{
  "server": {
    "host": "0.0.0.0",
    "port": 8080
  },
  "ffmpeg": {
    "binary": "/usr/local/bin/ffmpeg"
  }
}

MediaMTX focuses on a more compact, protocol-specific configuration, while Restreamer uses a broader JSON structure for its settings. MediaMTX's approach allows for more granular control over individual stream paths, whereas Restreamer's configuration is geared towards its web-based interface and overall system settings.

Both projects serve similar purposes but cater to different user needs. MediaMTX is better suited for users requiring advanced protocol support and fine-grained control, while Restreamer offers a more user-friendly experience with its web GUI and integrated features.

Pros of SRS

• More comprehensive streaming protocol support (RTMP, HLS, WebRTC, etc.)
• Higher performance and scalability for large-scale deployments
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of SRS

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Requires more server resources compared to Restreamer
• Less user-friendly interface for non-technical users

Code Comparison

SRS configuration example:

listen              1935;
max_connections     1000;
srs_log_tank        file;
srs_log_file        ./objs/srs.log;
http_server {
    enabled         on;
    listen          8080;
}

Restreamer configuration example:

{
  "server": {
    "host": "0.0.0.0",
    "port": 8080
  },
  "ffmpeg": {
    "logLevel": "warning"
  }
}

Both projects offer streaming solutions, but SRS is more feature-rich and scalable, while Restreamer focuses on simplicity and ease of use. SRS is better suited for large-scale deployments and advanced streaming scenarios, whereas Restreamer is ideal for smaller setups and users who prefer a more straightforward approach to video streaming.

Pros of docker-nginx-rtmp

• Lightweight and focused on RTMP streaming
• Easy to set up and configure for basic streaming needs
• Utilizes the well-established nginx-rtmp module

Cons of docker-nginx-rtmp

• Limited features compared to Restreamer's comprehensive streaming solution
• Lacks a user-friendly interface for managing streams
• Requires more manual configuration for advanced use cases

Code Comparison

docker-nginx-rtmp configuration:

rtmp {
    server {
        listen 1935;
        chunk_size 4096;

        application live {
            live on;
            record off;
        }
    }
}

Restreamer configuration (simplified example):

{
  "id": "live",
  "source": {
    "type": "rtmp",
    "url": "rtmp://localhost/live"
  },
  "outputs": [
    {
      "type": "rtmp",
      "url": "rtmp://streaming-server/live"
    }
  ]
}

While docker-nginx-rtmp uses a simple nginx configuration for RTMP streaming, Restreamer employs a more structured JSON configuration that allows for greater flexibility in managing multiple streams and outputs. Restreamer's approach provides a more comprehensive solution for complex streaming scenarios, whereas docker-nginx-rtmp is better suited for simpler setups.

Pros of Node-Media-Server

• Lightweight and efficient, focusing on core streaming functionality
• Supports multiple protocols (RTMP, HTTP-FLV, WebSocket-FLV, HLS)
• Easy to integrate into existing Node.js applications

Cons of Node-Media-Server

• Limited built-in features compared to Restreamer's comprehensive solution
• Less user-friendly for non-developers, lacking a graphical interface
• Requires more manual configuration and setup

Code Comparison

Node-Media-Server:

const NodeMediaServer = require('node-media-server');

const config = {
  rtmp: { port: 1935, chunk_size: 60000, gop_cache: true, ping: 30, ping_timeout: 60 },
  http: { port: 8000, allow_origin: '*' }
};

var nms = new NodeMediaServer(config);
nms.run();

Restreamer:

import { Restreamer } from '@datarhei/restreamer-js';

const restreamer = new Restreamer({
  ffmpeg: '/path/to/ffmpeg',
  rtmp: { port: 1935 },
  http: { port: 8080 }
});

restreamer.start();

Both projects provide streaming functionality, but Node-Media-Server focuses on core streaming features with a lightweight approach, while Restreamer offers a more comprehensive solution with additional features and a user interface. Node-Media-Server may be preferred for developers seeking a flexible, low-level streaming server, while Restreamer is better suited for users looking for an all-in-one streaming solution with a graphical interface.

Pros of Ant-Media-Server

• Supports more streaming protocols (WebRTC, RTMP, HLS, CMAF)
• Offers advanced features like adaptive bitrate streaming and low-latency streaming
• Provides scalable clustering for high-performance deployments

Cons of Ant-Media-Server

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires more system resources due to its extensive feature set
• Less focus on simplicity and ease of use for basic streaming needs

Code Comparison

Ant-Media-Server (Java):

@RestController
public class StreamsSourceRestService {
    @GetMapping("/broadcast/getStreamInfo")
    public ResponseEntity<?>  getStreamInfo(@RequestParam String streamId) {
        // Implementation
    }
}

Restreamer (JavaScript):

app.get('/api/v3/process', (req, res) => {
    const processes = restreamer.getProcesses();
    res.json(processes);
});

Summary

Ant-Media-Server is a more feature-rich and scalable solution, suitable for complex streaming scenarios and high-performance requirements. It offers a wider range of protocols and advanced features but comes with a steeper learning curve and higher resource demands.

Restreamer, on the other hand, focuses on simplicity and ease of use, making it a better choice for basic streaming needs or users who prefer a more straightforward setup. It may lack some advanced features but compensates with its user-friendly approach and lighter resource footprint.

The code comparison highlights the different languages used (Java vs. JavaScript) and the more complex API structure in Ant-Media-Server compared to Restreamer's simpler REST API approach.